Atrial tachyarrhythmias are the most common atrial arrhythmia, presently estimated to affect approximately 2.3 million Americans. There are two primary forms of atrial tachyarrhythmias, AF and AFl, with relative occurrence in their chronic forms of about 10:1, respectively. Current projections suggest that by the year 2050, between about twelve and about fifteen million Americans will suffer from AF. The enormity of the problem is magnified by its well-described clinical consequences: thromboembolic stroke, congestive heart failure (“CHF”), cognitive dysfunction, and possibly increased mortality.
Many different factors can promote the initiation and maintenance of AF and AFl. Several cardiac disorders can predispose patients to AF, including coronary artery disease, pericarditis, mitral valve disease, congenital heart disease, CHF, thyrotoxic heart disease, and hypertension. Many of these are thought to promote AF by increasing atrial pressure and/or causing atrial dilation. AF also occurs in individuals without any evidence of heart or systemic disease, a condition known as “lone AF,” which primarily involves the autonomic nervous system.
Both AF and AFl are maintained by a reentry mechanism. Specifically, atrial tissue continually excites itself, creating reentrant, i.e. circular or tornado-like patterns of excitation. AFl is generally defined as a macro-reentrant circuit, which can rotate around a functional or anatomic line of block. Major anatomical structures are usually involved in defining one or several simultaneous reentry circuit(s), including the region between superior and inferior venae cavae in the right atrium, and the pulmonary vein region in the left atrium. If the cycle length (“CL”) of the reentry remains relatively long, one-to-one conduction can remain throughout the entire atria and AFl can be observed. However, if the CLs of reentry circuits are sufficiently short, waves of excitation produced by the reentrant circuit break up in the surrounding atrial tissue and AF can ensue. The morphology of electrograms during AFl or AF depends on the anatomic location and frequency of reentrant circuits that cause the arrhythmia.
There are clear interactions between AF and AFl. AFl is defined as the presence of a single, constant, and stable reentrant circuit. AF, on the other hand, can be due to random activation in which multiple reentrant wavelets of the leading circle type (mother rotor) continuously circulate in directions determined by local excitability, refractoriness, and anatomical structure. AF can be converted to AFl, and vice versa, spontaneously or as a result of an intervention, such as drug administration, DC cardioversion, or atrial pacing.
AF is the most prevalent clinical arrhythmia in the world and, with an aging population, has the potential of becoming an increasing cause of morbidity and mortality. Although several options for pharmaceutical treatment exist, for some patients, particularly those with paroxysmal AF, drug therapy can be ineffective. In addition, anti-arrhythmic drugs can have serious pro-arrhythmic side effects. Therefore, non-pharmacologic treatments of AF are needed.
One alternative to pharmacological treatment of AF is a cardiac ablation procedure. While there have been many advances in ablative techniques, these procedures are not without risks. Such risks can include cardiac perforation, esophageal injury, embolism, phrenic nerve injury, and pulmonary vein stenosis. There are also implantable devices currently on the market for the treatment of atrial tachyarrhythmias. Some of these devices apply near-field overdrive pacing, also known as antitachycardia pacing (“ATP”); conventional high-energy far field defibrillation shocks; or a combination thereof. ATP works by delivering a burst of pacing stimuli at an empirically chosen frequency at a single pacing site in order to stimulate the excitable gap of a reentrant circuit, disrupting and terminating the circuit. Although ATP can be effective for slower AFls, the effectiveness of ATP can diminish for CLs below about two hundred milliseconds (“ms”) and can be ineffective for faster AFl and AF. ATP failure can occur when the pacing lead is located at a distance from the reentrant circuit and the pacing-induced wavefront is annihilated before reaching the circuit. This can be a highly probable scenario for faster arrhythmias.
Another manner in which atrial arrhythmias have been treated is with standard external defibrillators with the patient sedated during delivery of a defibrillation shock. There have also been external defibrillation systems, such as that disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 5,928,270, specifically designed for use with atrial arrhythmias. However, in order to provide an external shock that can effectively terminate arrhythmias with electrode placed externally on the body, such systems must provide higher energy shocks than would be required by implantable devices. In addition, externally applied shocks necessarily recruit more of the skeletal musculature resulting in potentially more pain and discomfort to the patient.
Another method of treatment for patients with recurrent persistent AF is the implantable atrial defibrillator (“IAD”), such as described in U.S. Pat. Nos. 3,738,370 to Charms, 3,942,536 to Mirowski and 5,265,600 to Adams. Although initial clinical trials have shown that IADs have a high specificity and sensitivity to AF and deliver safe and effective shocks, the energy level needed for successful cardioversion can exceed the pain threshold. Endocardial cardioversion shock energies greater than 0.1 J are perceived to be uncomfortable (Ladwig, K. H., Marten-Mittag, B., Lehmann, G., Gündel, H., Simon, H., Alt, E., Absence of an Impact of Emotional Distress on the Perception of Intracardiac Shock Discharges, International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 2003, 10(1): 56-65), and patients can fail to distinguish energy levels higher than this. The pain threshold depends on many factors, including autonomic tone, presence of drugs, location of electrodes and shock waveforms. Moreover, pain thresholds can be different from patient to patient.
Various approaches have sought to lower the energy level required for effective atrial fibrillation. A number of systems, such as, for example, U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,797,967 to KenKnight, U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,081,746, 6,085,116 and 6,292,691 to Pendekanti et al., and U.S. Pat. No. 6,556,862 and 6,587,720 to Hsu et al. disclose application of atrial pacing pulses in order to lower the energy level necessary for atrial defibrillation shocks. The energy delivered by pacing pulses is relatively nominal in comparison to defibrillation shocks. U.S. Pat. No. 5,620,468 to Mongeon et al. discloses applying cycles of low energy pulse bursts to the atrium to terminate atrial arrhythmias. U.S. Pat. No. 5,840,079 to Warman et al. discloses applying low-rate ventricular pacing before delivering atrial defibrillation pulses. U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,246,906 and 6,526,317 to Hsu et al. disclose delivering both atrial and ventricular pacing pulses prior to delivering an atrial defibrillation pulse. U.S. Pat. No. 6,327,500 to Cooper et al. discloses delivering two reduced-energy, sequential defibrillation pulses instead of one larger energy defibrillation pulse.
Other systems have sought to lower the patient's perception of the pain associated with atrial defibrillation shocks. For example, U.S. Pat. No. 5,792,187 to Adams applies electromagnetic stimulation of nerve structures in the area of the shock to block the transmission of the pain signal resulting from the shock. U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,711,442 to Swerdlow et al. and 7,155,286 to Kroll et al. disclose application of a “prepulse” prior to application of a high voltage shock pulse in order to reduce the perceived pain and startle response caused by the shock pulse. U.S. Pat. No. 5,925,066 to Kroll et al. discloses a drug delivery system i9n combination with anti-tachy pacing for inhibiting pain upon detection of atrial fibrillation. U.S. Pat. No. 7,142,927 to Benser measures the physical displacement of an unconscious patient in response to various shock levels and programs an arrhythmia treatment device to provide shocks that will not cause an excessive level of discomfort.
Despite these efforts, there remains a need for improved atrial arrhythmia treatment methods and devices enabling successful electrical treatment without exceeding the pain threshold of any given patient and without relying on pharmacological or ablative treatments.